1,737-900er HGH/HGW (winglets)/HGW (scimitar) voyage, in reality the aircraft could not load or 90% load this far, as of 737-700 as fuel consumption bugs come BGW, please amend the parameters according to the actual situation, not because there is no alternative flight will appear this kind of bug 757
2,The arj21-700 is a 100-seat regional jet, not a narrow-body liner, which needs to be modified in its classification
3，Aircraft in station stop time is too long, for example, my regional jet in 8 airport don't do freight, residence time for 55 minutes, real-life narrow body aircraft (320 & 737) level is such time, regional aircraft stay time is shorter, hope you can refer to the actual modification
I believe the 220 max passengers relates to what you can legally put in it in regards to design and exits. Because the seats work on a space available vs space a seat takes this forms the discrepancy. You can also not for 149 in a -600 but it is certified for it. Needless to say if you are ramming in 220 seats into a -900 in the AS world your business plan is flawed. So it really effects very few people.
I can’t see a bug with the 737-700 performance? Please explain
1) Nothing wrong with the 220 seat capacity - a normal config for a -900 is 150-170 with business class seats - 737-700 not really sure what you are saying about that?
2) ARJ21…really? Not really a big deal to be honest.
3) The stop time includes taxing and slots times, from the moment of touchdown - taxi - unboarding - boarding - call up - taxi - takeoff - in reality a regional jet will only be a little bit shorter in time, maybe even less than 10 minutes than a 737/A320 - thats why you see more of them at the bigger airports.
All three of these are really nit picking. Far bigger fish to fry for the makers of this game than this.
1) I believe the 220 max passengers relates to what you can legally put in it in regards to design and exits. Because the seats work on a space available vs space a seat takes this forms the discrepancy. You can also not for 149 in a -600 but it is certified for it. Needless to say if you are ramming in 220 seats into a -900 in the AS world your business plan is flawed. So it really effects very few people.
I can’t see a bug with the 737-700 performance? Please explain
737-700 long ago the problem is about fuel consumption, very little. 737-900 is the voyage problem, both are more realistic than the situation
1) Nothing wrong with the 220 seat capacity - a normal config for a -900 is 150-170 with business class seats - 737-700 not really sure what you are saying about that?
2) ARJ21…really? Not really a big deal to be honest.
3) The stop time includes taxing and slots times, from the moment of touchdown - taxi - unboarding - boarding - call up - taxi - takeoff - in reality a regional jet will only be a little bit shorter in time, maybe even less than 10 minutes than a 737/A320 - thats why you see more of them at the bigger airports.
All three of these are really nit picking. Far bigger fish to fry for the makers of this game than this.
about the 1st queston,737-900 even if the full load can fly more than 6,000 km?i think in The actual situation, no airlines, including Boeing did not dare to bragging
3rd,In the actual, the actual flight time is much smaller than the flight table, but in game is almost the same flight time as the flight table. The game maker lengthens the dwell time, including the factors you say, but shortens the flight time or shortens the timetable's flight time
The ranges that we have for the aircraft are the real life ranges. You can check that with official documents that Boeing (and Airbus) publish.
The difference between those official ranges and the real life flights you see that an airline is offering comes from a couple of factors.
AS does not simulate winds and weather. While for example the 757 easily gets over the big pond even in winter flying east, it has troubles when flying west with heavy headwinds and needs (sometimes) to make a fuel stop in between. To have better planability, airlines try to avoid such “risky” flights that disturb their schedules and cause all kind of follow up troubles. Airlines work with +9x% weather pattern where they can expect to fly a route with their specific aircraft.
AS then also has the direct great circle distance, while real life routes follow waypoints and fly circles around airports during take-off and landings.
The ranges stated are normally for brand new aircraft. With each flight hour, the engines lose a little of performance, the aircraft gets heavier cos there’s condensing water accumulating in the insulation (which can apparently be up to 1 ton!) and other factors. So an aircraft that is a few years old loses easily a couple of percent in range. Since airlines mix and match flight numbers with tails, they have to be sure each aircraft can fly each route.
The official ranges are also calculated with an OEM standard cabin and minimal crew, etc. Real life airlines have more comfy seats (read heavier), feature IFE, more crew, perks and stuff that all adds to the weight and limits performance.
Take off performance also influences flight routes, especially with hot and high airports.
In AS we ignore basically all of those points for simplicity reasons. Although we’d like to see features like that, it’s quite a complex thing and unfortunately development time very scarce. And even if it would be possible to program, many of those parameters are not publicly available and highly guarded “secrets” from the OEMs (and probably airlines don’t share these neither).